Heated debate on evolution with brother

[Esquilax]

Can I try, too?
No one has come close to showing that even the simplest god could possibly assemble itself.

False Equivalence - created entity to eternal entity.

Then all one needs is a simple modification to deal with your semantic dodge and get the argument back on track, namely that you're desperately scrabbling to avoid your own double standard.

No one has come close to showing that an eternal entity could possibly exist.

There we are. Are observations required, or are they not? Moreover, please do note the difference between evidence and assertions, as the rest of your diatribe falls squarely in the latter category.

Creation affirms that God is a necessary being (a being that cannot not exist or must exist) that called all contingent realities (things that cannot create themselves) into existence. God is thus the infinite and eternal, self-existent. Past infinite regression explanations breakdown logically into metaphysical speculations. God has reveal himself in two ways: 1. General Revelation (Creation), 2. Special Revelation (Scripture). All 7 billion persons should know the reason for Creation*. It appears per scripture that a large minority will choose connection with God thru redemption; while the smallest majority will choose separation by rejecting redemption.

So your evidence is "creation," which is absolutely not in evidence, and "the book done said it." You read the book, and then willfully assume your conclusion. Are you proud of that?

If I said my evidence you were wrong was Undesigned Nature and Science Books, would you accept that as true? Or do you suddenly gain the ability to recognize when people are lazily trying to insert their conclusions into their arguments when it's not your question begging on the chopping block?